Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 1/31/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) NABE Survey Says Us Economy Growth to Pick Up, Employers to Add Jobs over Next Three Months
Jan 30, 2018 | Staffing Industry Analysts
The National Association for Business Economics’ January 2018 business conditions survey indicates additional job increases likely over the next three months, and its outlook for growth in the overall economy over the next four quarters surpasses... -
Senate Democrats Vent at Pruitt, Warn of Trouble for EPA Nominees
Jan 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt may face difficulty in getting the Senate to approve nominees to be his deputy and his chief financial officer after sitting through harsh questioning at a tense and turbulent Jan. 30 hearing. -
Pruitt, Carper Huddle on Stalled Nominations
Jan 30, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus and George Cahlink
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had a quick confab today with one of his prime Capitol Hill agitators to discuss stalled nominations at the agency. -
Why We Will Choose Public Service over Politics in the Pruitt EPA
Jan 30, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Jennifer McPartland, Juleen Lam and Timothy Malloy
Last fall, we learned of our nominations to serve on the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). -
Energy, Interior Nominations Advance to Full Senate
Jan 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski and Rebecca Kern
Four nominations for high-level posts in the Energy Department and the Interior Department advanced Jan. 30 in a series of voice votes by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Backs EPA's New Chemicals Framework But Seeks Faster Reviews
Jan 30, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Chemical industry groups are backing EPA's authority to drop the use of enforceable orders as an interim step in its framework for regulating new chemicals under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), arguing the agency has used the approach in the past... -
(ACC Mentioned) Controversial Trump Nominee Michael Dourson Is Finally Leaving EPA Job He Never Had
Jan 30, 2018 | AlterNet
By Ansje Miller
On December 13, after six months of vocal opposition from a united front of environmental, labor and civic organizations, and hundreds of thousands of citizens affected by toxic chemicals, Michael Dourson withdrew his nomination to lead the toxics program at the EPA. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Reforming Chemical Safety Program to Avoid Cuts
Jan 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
The EPA's chemical toxicity assessment program, which narrowly avoided the chopping block last year, is unveiling more transparent reports on uranium and chloroform to address GOP complaints. -
(ACC Mentioned) Dow Backs Call for Industry Input in Non-Animal Product Safety Tests
Jan 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Companies such as Dow Chemical, and the agencies that regulate them, should collaborate more to identify non-animal chemical safety tests that can help inform federal rules, a new interagency strategy recommends. -
3M Firefighting Foam Cancer Fears Spur Suits
Jan 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Hope Grosse grew up across the street from the Naval Air Warfare Center in Warminster, Pa. -
Lead-Paint Makers Try California Bond Measure to Duck Court Case
Jan 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Sherwin-Williams Co., NL Industries Inc., and ConAgra Grocery Products Co. are pushing for a $2 billion California bond measure to preempt a lead-paint public nuisance ruling. -
Trump Hints at Energy Dominance as US Producers Cross Historic Threshold
Jan 31, 2018 | Platts
By Brian Scheid and Meghan Gordon
President Donald Trump said Tuesday that the "war" on American energy is over in a State of the Union speech given as US crude oil output is set to reach levels not seen in more than 47 years. -
Trump Tax Plan a $190 Billion Boost to U.S. Oil, Study Finds
Jan 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Nussbaum
When President Donald Trump gives his State of the Union address Jan. 30, he'll surely tout the sweeping U.S. tax overhaul approved by Congress last month. For the country's oil explorers, the law should mean an almost $200 billion boost in asset values, one consultant says. -
Scott Pruitt’s Words Don’t Match His Actions on Dangers of Methane Pollution
Jan 30, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Katie Huffling
As a nurse, I recognize the important role that clean air, clean water, and a clean environment have in protecting the health of all Americans. My nurse colleagues and I look to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to follow its mission of protecting public health... -
These Quiet Policy Changes Will Pave Way for Massive Development on Public Land
Jan 30, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Eric Holst
Many of Donald Trump’s most atrocious attacks on nature and wildlife have faced swift backlash from the American public – including his reversal of national monument designations, his original reversal of the trophy hunting ban, and his reopening of decades-long... -
With Democrats in Charge, N.J. Wants to Exit Litigation
Jan 30, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
With a Democrat in its governor's mansion, New Jersey wants to exit the massive litigation over the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. -
Groups Call for Investigation of EPA Inaction at Torrance Refinery
Jan 30, 2018 | Los Angeles Times
By Evan Halper
After federal inspectors uncovered what they reported to be serious hazardous waste violations at the Torrance Refinery, the incoming Trump administration chose not to pursue them, dismaying the team that visited the facility. -
Trump Gives Few Details, but Plan Gradually Unfolding
Jan 31, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk and Geof Koss
President Trump laid out his plans for infrastructure in broad strokes last night, but the details remain elusive. -
Trump Calls for Condensed Permitting Process for Infrastructure
Jan 30, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna
President Donald Trump called for any infrastructure package developed by Congress to shrink the permitting process for new projects to as little as a year. -
Opinion: Let’s Build Something Great Together
Jan 31, 2018 | Roll Call
By Rep. Sam Graves
2017 was a record year for our economy. Thanks to tax reform, and this administration’s aggressive regulatory reduction, our economy is growing at an exponential rate. 2018 presents a great opportunity to push the throttle on our economic growth as we move to our next big priority: infrastructure. -
Toxic Chemical Releases Fell Over Decade, EPA Analysis Says
Jan 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
Toxic pollution released into the environment increased slightly in 2016, but is down significantly from a decade ago, the EPA reported Jan. 30. -
EPA Formally Announces TRI Analysis Following Quiet Release
Jan 30, 2018 | Inside EPA
PA is touting its release of the national analysis of the most recent available data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), showing “that industrial facilities continue to reduce the releases of TRI chemicals through pollution reduction activities...
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Jan 30, 2018 | Staffing Industry Analysts
The National Association for Business Economics’ January 2018 business conditions survey indicates additional job increases likely over the next three months, and its outlook for growth in the overall economy over the next four quarters surpasses the relatively positive assessments of the past few quarterly surveys.
NABE’s survey included 119 of its members — which include business economists and those who use economics in the workplace — and was conducted between Dec. 26, 2017 and Jan. 10, 2018.
“More respondents report that their firms are hiring — and having trouble filling positions — than in the October survey,” said NABE VP Kevin Swift, who is also chief economist at the American Chemistry Council.
The share of respondents reporting rising employment at their firms over the past three months rose to 27% from 25% in NABE’s last business conditions survey released in October. The net rising index increased by a net of 18, up from an index of 10 in October and slightly higher than the average of 17 in the previous four surveys.
Looking forward, the share of respondents who anticipate their firms will add workers in the next quarter rose to 35% in January from 26% in October, but the share expecting job reductions was unchanged at 8%. This results in a nine-point increase in the net rising index rising nine points — up to 27, the highest NRI reading since April 2015.
Survey results also suggest wage growth is picking up, and that further gains are likely over the next three months. Fifty-eight percent of respondents expect wages to rise over the next three months, up from 49% in the prior survey.
https://www2.staffingindustry.com/site/Editorial/Daily-News/NABE-survey-says-US-economy-growth-to-pick-up-employers-to-add-jobs-over-next-three-months-44884
-
Senate Democrats Vent at Pruitt, Warn of Trouble for EPA Nominees
Jan 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt may face difficulty in getting the Senate to approve nominees to be his deputy and his chief financial officer after sitting through harsh questioning at a tense and turbulent Jan. 30 hearing.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the Environment and Public Works Committee's ranking Democrat, said he told Pruitt he would attempt to block two pending EPA nominees, Andrew Wheeler to be deputy administrator and Holly Greaves to be chief financial officer, as a protest against Kathleen Hartnett White, the Trump administration's pick to lead the White House's Council on Environmental Quality.
Carper said White's confirmation hearing before his committee was among the worst he'd ever seen and that progressing on the EPA's other nominations could be difficult if White is still in contention.
While Republicans praised Pruitt at the environment committee's hearing, Carper and several Democrats expressed their displeasure with the deregulatory actions Pruitt has taken and chafed at his refusal to provide yes-or-no answers to their questions. Pruitt did not respond to reporters’ questions as he left the hearing room.
Hints at Significant Actions
During the hearing, Pruitt hinted at significant actions on car emissions, lead contamination, and other issues in the coming months.
He signaled his agency may strip California of its ability to set its own standards for vehicle fuel efficiency, something that would seem to go against his oft-stated mantra of “cooperative federalism.”
However, Pruitt told lawmakers that the Golden State, which has a historical exemption that lets it set pollution requirements more stringent than federal automobile standards, may have too much power.
“Federalism doesn't mean one state can dictate the rest of the country,” Pruitt said during the hearing. “But we recognize California's special status.”
Additionally, Pruitt said he has a goal to eliminate lead from drinking water within 10 years. He would not commit to maintaining the Obama administration's 2009 endangerment finding for carbon dioxide, a landmark Environmental Protection Agency ruling that formed the basis for all of the climate regulations that followed.
Clashes with Duckworth
None of the committee's Democrats were more pointed in their criticism of Pruitt than Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).
She questioned whether Pruitt was committed to eliminating lead contamination, given he has delayed a long-planned update of the EPA's lead standards and proposed cuts to the agency's lead abatement programs. The administrator said he was working on the issue.
Later in the hearing, Duckworth asked about Pruitt's trip to Morocco, during which he reportedly promoted the sale of U.S. natural gas. Duckworth said this was “something that someone running for governor of Oklahoma would do,” referencing rumors that Pruitt plans on using his position as a steppingstone to elected office.
Pruitt told the senator he would provide her with information on his activities during the trip. Then, Duckworth asked Pruitt whether he thought any of the African countries he visited “were shitholes,” referencing a comment reportedly made by President Donald Trump about immigrants from the continent.
Immediately after posing the question, Duckworth's time for questioning Pruitt expired and the EPA leader did not respond.
Comments on Trump
To a member, Republicans on the committee praised Pruitt and thanked him for his efforts to roll back the Obama administration's environmental regulations.
“Scott Pruitt has protected more jobs and promoted more job growth than any other EPA administrator in history,” the committee's chairman, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), said.
However, Pruitt did have harsh words for the country's top Republican—albeit words he said prior to Trump's victory in 2016.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) brought up several comments Pruitt made in a radio interviewduring the 2016 Republican presidential primary, obtained and released Jan. 30 by the advocacy group Documented, in which he called Trump “dangerous” and described him as a “bully.”
Pruitt said he didn't remember making those comments and that they don't reflect how he feels now.
Pruitt Dodges Climate Questions
When it came to questions about climate change, Pruitt for the most part declined to give concrete answers to the lawmakers.
He told Carper that his office hasn't yet decided whether it will rescind the agency's endangerment finding. Even among conservative activists who oppose government regulation of greenhouse gases, there is much disagreement on whether it would be worthwhile for the EPA to attempt to overturn this finding.
Additionally, Pruitt said the EPA was still considering holding a so-called “red team, blue team” debate in which climate scientists would square off against those who reject mainstream climate science.
Carper told reporters after the hearing that he questioned Pruitt's professions that he is a “person of faith.” He said the administrator is not following the so-called “Golden Rule,” in which one should treat a neighbor as they would like to be treated. Pruitt allows states to emit more cross-state air pollution, especially into Carper's home state of Delaware, the senator said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127646139&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127646139&jd=127646139
-
Pruitt, Carper Huddle on Stalled Nominations
Jan 30, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus and George Cahlink
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had a quick confab today with one of his prime Capitol Hill agitators to discuss stalled nominations at the agency.
Pruitt leaned across the dais to talk with Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, soon after the EPA chief finished up his testimony before the panel.
Carper told reporters afterward that he and Pruitt discussed EPA nominees who have so far failed to receive Senate conformation.
"We talked about the nomination of Mr. [Andrew] Wheeler to be assistant administrator, and we talked about the nomination of a woman named Holly Greaves who's been nominated EPA chief financial officer," said Carper.
President Trump first nominated Wheeler, a former senior EPW Committee aide who has also lobbied for the firm Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting, last year. The White House sent his name to the Hill again earlier this month.
Trump picked Greaves, a senior EPA budget aide to Pruitt, for the agency's top finance job this month. The full Senate has failed to consider either pick.
Carper said he told Pruitt it will be hard to act on Wheeler and Greaves as long as the nomination of Kathleen Hartnett White for chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality remains active.
Carper again blasted Hartnett White's hearing testimony before the committee last year, calling it "perhaps the worst performance I've seen in 17 years for a witness."
"I made it clear that those nominations, we're going to find it difficult to move them forward expeditiously as long as the nomination of Kathleen Hartnett White was still out there," the Delaware senator said. "He needs to be mindful of that."
Wheeler has also come under some scrutiny from some Democrats for his prior lobbying work on behalf of coal giant Murray Energy Corp. Carper said he had urged Wheeler to meet with Democrats to explain his advocacy work.
"I've urged him to meet with every Democrat on this committee and others off this committee to fully explain his role in the work of [Murray Energy CEO Bob Murray], fully explain how he participated if at all in it," Carper said.
In a separate conversation with reporters, Carper expressed doubts over whether Pruitt could truly not recall comments he made in early 2016 bashing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump — even after Democrats played back a tape of the remarks (Greenwire, Jan. 30).
"For Scott Pruitt not remembering saying those things about Donald Trump, really?" the Delaware senator said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/01/30/stories/1060072419
-
Why We Will Choose Public Service over Politics in the Pruitt EPA
Jan 30, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Jennifer McPartland, Juleen Lam and Timothy Malloy
Last fall, we learned of our nominations to serve on the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We have each chosen to accept our appointment, despite a misguided and deeply troubling directive recently issued by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to bar experts currently receiving EPA grants from serving on any EPA advisory committees.
The BOSC is one of 22 federal advisory committees at EPA. Comprised of outside experts, the BOSC provides scientific advice and recommendations to the research arm of the agency, the Office of Research and Development (ORD).
Essentially, the job of the BOSC is to ensure that EPA’s research programs (focusing on air, water, community health, and chemical safety, among other areas) are supported by strong, high-quality science and work to fulfill the agency’s mission of protecting public health and the environment. Other committees that advise EPA include the Science Advisory Board (SAB), charged with peer-reviewing the science behind EPA’s policy decisions on environmental pollutants.
Unfortunately, Pruitt’s directive undermines the BOSC and all other EPA advisory panels. His directive effectively purges independent university scientists from serving on advisory boards, simply because they receive EPA grants. Meanwhile, scientists employed or funded by private companies or trade associations — entities, unlike universities, that stand to directly gain or lose financially from agency actions — are not precluded from serving. We strongly oppose this directive.
Pruitt’s false premise is that scientists who receive EPA research support are biased; that they generate results that support EPA regulatory decisions so as to garner favor and further funding. It simply doesn’t work that way: EPA intentionally runs its extramural research program through its non-regulatory research arm ORD specifically to create separation from the agency’s program offices responsible for regulatory decisions.
The scientists at EPA involved in deciding which external scientists receive EPA research funding are not those making regulatory decisions. The great majority of EPA’s extramural research is funded through the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grant program. STAR grant applicants undergo a highly competitive, peer-reviewed process to ensure their proposed research is scientifically sound and relevant. The end result of this rigorous review process is the funding of high-caliber research. Indeed, the STAR grant program has received significant praise by the National Academy of Sciences — the nation’s premier scientific body.
Rather than being excluded from service, EPA grantees should be viewed as strong candidates for EPA advisory committees. Because of the high standards for receiving EPA funding, these investigators represent the forefront of their fields — exactly the sort of experts well positioned to provide the necessary scientific advice to the EPA.
EPA has extensive conflict of interest requirements already in place to ensure potential conflicts of interests do not improperly affect the deliberations of the BOSC. Singling out investigators who receive EPA funding for exclusion is unfair and robs the agency of critical expertise.
The scientific issues that the BOSC considers are challenging and important. For instance, our BOSC subcommittee will likely consider ORD’s work to develop new chemical testing methods. These methods hold the promise of being faster and cheaper while providing relevant and reliable safety data. For a decade, EPA scientists and others have been developing new molecular-, cell- and computer-based testing approaches to help fill pervasive data gaps on thousands of chemicals to help set priorities and take health-protective actions where needed.
Eliminating input from independent university scientists who are leading experts in this field threatens the agency’s ability to ensure that these methods can be integrated appropriately and effectively in its chemical assessments.
Pruitt’s directive made our decision to serve on the BOSC a difficult one. We know of colleagues who have declined to serve in response to the directive, and we respect their decisions. Yet given the importance of ORD’s mission, we believe that it is vital for independent scientists representing the public interest to serve on the BOSC, particularly given the significant increase in the appointments of industry scientists to advisory committees and politically-appointed positions within the agency. For this reason, we have accepted our nominations. We take seriously the BOSC Charter’s emphasis on engaging a range of voices, as well as our responsibility to provide the best guidance possible to agency scientists to ensure their work in fact serves the public good.
But let us be clear: Our service on this advisory board in no way reflects concurrence with Pruitt’s directive. In fact, we couldn’t disagree with it more and strongly urge Pruitt to rescind his directive.
Dr. Juleen Lam is an Associate Research Scientist at the University of California, San Francisco where she specializes in environmental health issues, with a specific focus on vulnerable populations.
Timothy Malloy is a professor at UCLA School of Law and the Fielding School of Public Health.
Dr. Jennifer McPartland is a senior scientist in the health program at Environmental Defense Fund where she works to reduce harmful chemical exposures through policy and market-based action.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/371469-why-we-will-choose-public-service-over-politics-in-the-pruitt-epa
-
Energy, Interior Nominations Advance to Full Senate
Jan 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski and Rebecca Kern
Four nominations for high-level posts in the Energy Department and the Interior Department advanced Jan. 30 in a series of voice votes by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
The Senate doesn't have guidance on timing for the floor vote on the four nominees, but it won't be this week, David Popp, communications director for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, told Bloomberg Environment.
The committee advanced Anne White to be the assistant secretary of the Energy Department's Office of Environmental Management. White, a nuclear engineer, is founder of Bastet Technical Services LLC, a consulting firm the deals with environmental cleanup projects across the Energy Department.
The committee held a business meeting for the voice votes for two Energy and two Interior officials following Senate floor votes in the afternoon. The committee lacked a full quorum to hold votes on nominees during a scheduled meeting earlier in the day.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) asked to be recorded as a no vote on White's nomination. He put a hold on her nomination that remains, his office told Bloomberg Environment. He wants her to pledge to end the Department of Energy's uranium bartering, which is an effort to offer cleaned uranium for entities that take on nuclear cleanup.
The committee also advanced Melissa Burnison, the Energy Department nominee for assistant secretary of energy for congressional and intergovernmental affairs.
Burnison is the director of federal programs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the lobbying arm for the nuclear industry. She has worked as a senior adviser at the Energy Department and as an aide to former Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.).
Interior Nominees
Additionally, the committee moved forward the nominations of Susan Combs to be Interior Department's assistant secretary of policy, management, and budget, and Ryan Nelson, to be Interior Department's solicitor. Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) asked to be recorded as no votes for Combs and Nelson.
Combs, a ranch owner, essentially will be Interior's chief financial officer if confirmed. She has experience in government financial management from her past years as Texas comptroller, commissioner of the Texas Department of Agriculture, and a member of the Texas House of Representatives.
She played a role in bringing endangered species issues under the authority of the state comptroller's office in 2011, moving it from the state Parks and Wildlife Department. She led efforts in Texas to avoid listing the dunes sagebrush lizard under the Endangered Species Act.
Nelson was approved by the committee last September, but his nomination stalled as the Senate focused on other business. He is an Idaho attorney who has worked in the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Justice Department and has been a special counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and a deputy general counsel in the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Nelson currently is general counsel for the health supplement company Melaleuca Inc. He also was an associate in the law firm Sidley Austin LLP.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127646141&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127646141&jd=127646141
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Backs EPA's New Chemicals Framework But Seeks Faster Reviews
Jan 30, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Chemical industry groups are backing EPA's authority to drop the use of enforceable orders as an interim step in its framework for regulating new chemicals under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), arguing the agency has used the approach in the past, but are also urging EPA to take further steps to speed its new chemical review process.
Environmentalists have sued EPA over the framework, and in comments opposed the agency's forgoing use of consent orders under section 5(e), under which manufacturers agree to limit chemicals' uses as an interim step before finalizing significant new use rules (SNURs), and also faulted EPA's use of the framework prior to reviewing comments.
But groups including the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as coalitions formed to inform EPA's TSCA implementation, such as the TSCA New Chemicals Coalition (NCC) and the New Chemicals Program Implementation Coalition (NCPIC), contend EPA has discretion to forgo consent orders and should not preclude companies from moving forward with their intended uses while the agency considers other potential uses.
“In deciding whether or not to issue a section 5(e) order, EPA has discretion to consider the conditions of use to be only the use, handling, and exposure conditions indicated in the [premanufacture notice (PMN)] and the use, handling, and exposure conditions reasonably foreseeable from them,” ACC says. “EPA is not required to make a may present finding based on concerns that do not arise from the PMN, nor is it required to issue a section 5(e) order to the PMN submitter based solely on concerns arising outside the context of the PMN."
ACC and other industry groups also argue that EPA is failing to complete chemical reviews within the 90-day timeframe Congress intended and call for changes to speed the review process, including approving uses described in a PMN prior to limiting other potential uses through a SNUR.
'Avoidable Delays'
NCPIC faults “avoidable delays” in EPA's new process as resulting from a range of factors, including unpredictable information expectations and poor communication to overly conservative risk analysis procedures that are not fit to the context, and unnecessary paperwork procedures.
“We recognize that many of these challenges are in part an unavoidable result of adapting to certain new procedures required by the [revised TSCA], but there is also a concern that the Agency is reading its remaining TSCA [section] 5 discretion too narrowly, and a perception that EPA is applying a more restrictive review standard when determining whether risk management control actions are warranted,” the group says.
EPA sought comment through Jan. 20 on documents supporting its process for reviewing new chemicals under the revised TSCA, including a “New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework” that the agency is currently implementing and plans to further revise. EPA also sought an outline of a planned new chemicals decisions guidelines manual.
The framework seeks to implement new requirements under TSCA section 5, including that EPA make a definitive finding regarding the safety of each new chemical that it reviews and approves in a PMN. The law also requires that EPA consider "reasonably foreseeable" uses -- such as uses of the chemical that are not included in a PMN application but could occur once a chemical is added to the TSCA inventory.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Jan. 5 sued EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit to block the new chemical review framework, following advocates' long-standing claims that EPA's implementation of the new framework violates TSCA and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Environmentalists in comments to the agency have argued that TSCA mandates use of enforceable orders to ensure that PMNs EPA issues to allow new chemical uses do not pose unreasonable risks or inadvertently allow other uses that may pose risks.
'Reasonably Foreseeable Uses'
But in comments, the TSCA NCC faults the environmentalists' criticism of EPA's dropping of section 5 orders as “ill-conceived,” arguing that companies would face enforcement liability in commercializing unapproved uses, and that the agency has authority to compel chemicals testing under TSCA section 4.
“The TSCA NCC also supports the proposed approach to address concerns with reasonably foreseen conditions of use, but not the intended conditions of use as described in a submission, through the use of SNURs,” the group says. “Parties using a chemical are required to have [a safety data sheet] and provide to an inspector upon request, which would trigger any questions as appropriate.”
ACC argues that the 2016 revised TSCA does not significantly alter EPA's new chemicals review process, and that Congress' directive to consider “reasonably foreseeable uses” was primarily intended to inform the agency's reviews of existing chemicals under section 6.
“The inclusion of conditions of use in section 5 was for the sake of consistency throughout the statute, rather than for the purpose of overhauling the scope of PMN reviews,” ACC says. “Certainly, Congress expressed no intention to upend the New Chemicals Review Program by mandating a much more expansive scope to PMN reviews in light of the use of that term in section 5.”
While backing EPA's authority to drop the section 5(e) orders, ACC argues that the agency should speed its issuance of non-order SNURs and take other steps to ensure new chemical reviews are completed within 90 days as Congress intended.
ACC urges EPA to issue findings that uses described in a PMN are “not likely to present” unreasonable risk, despite risk concerns about future uses, rather than waiting until a SNUR has been finalized to preclude other uses. ACC argues that EPA has taken that approach 793 times in the past and that the revised law does not mandate a different approach.
“In ACC’s view, the major problem with EPA’s current conception of a non-order SNUR is that it will not terminate the PMN review period until the SNUR becomes effective,” the comments say. “EPA would thus complete its review of a PMN but delay issuing its not likely to present finding until the SNUR becomes effective months later. This delay is contrary to section 5."
ACC also suggests other steps for expediting the agency's new chemicals review process. “EPA does not publish a proposed rule at the time it publishes a direct final SNUR,” the group says. “EPA could expedite the process if it were to publish a proposed rule at the same time as it publishes the direct final rule, as it has done in other instances.”
Additionally, ACC urges EPA to shorten the time-frame for publication of a direct final non-order SNUR.
NCPIC argues that EPA should take additional steps to speed its process, including increasing consultation with industry before and during new chemical reviews, and providing resources and guidance to make better use of those meetings. The group also urges EPA to explore methods of controlling future uses besides issuance of SNURs.
“Given the time and effort needed to craft and promulgate appropriately circumscribed SNURs, the 90-day review context in which Congress generally expects EPA to act, and the great increase in the number of SNURs EPA is issuing after the Lautenberg Act, the Agency must explore whether there are methods other than SNURs to achieve reasonable assurance of risk management that may be less burdensome on manufacturers and users to develop and manage,” the group says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-backs-epas-new-chemicals-framework-seeks-faster-reviews
-
(ACC Mentioned) Controversial Trump Nominee Michael Dourson Is Finally Leaving EPA Job He Never Had
Jan 30, 2018 | AlterNet
By Ansje Miller
On December 13, after six months of vocal opposition from a united front of environmental, labor and civic organizations, and hundreds of thousands of citizens affected by toxic chemicals, Michael Dourson withdrew his nomination to lead the toxics program at the EPA.
Dourson had a history of supporting weakening standards for toxic chemicals to the detriment of people’s health—working for the tobacco industry to downplay the effects of secondhand smoke, the chemical industry to bless Teflon, and the Koch brothers to dismiss the health concerns related to petroleum coke.
As a friend to chemical companies and Big Tobacco, Dourson had no business deciding what chemicals are safe for children, and what toxics should be put into the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the products we use every day. His presence at the EPA would have undermined last year’s chemical safety reforms and increased the likelihood Americans would get sick or contract cancer.
Dourson’s withdrawal followed the release of several hundreds of pages of correspondence he had with chemical industry officials, whose products were scheduled for priority review by the EPA. The documents showed that Dourson’s toxicology center at the University of Cincinnati accepted money from the American Chemical Council and other companies for research and solicited chemical industry edits of a draft research paper before submitting it to a journal for publication.
But to the dismay of many, a January 23 Politico article reported that, in fact, Dourson has yet to leave the job he never had. He’s been advising EPA Administrator and climate change denier Scott Pruitt (who built his political career attacking clean air and water safeguards) on chemical issues since October. As Attorney General of Oklahoma, Pruitt infamously sued the EPA 14 times to block such standards while raising money from the companies that would benefit from looser pollution rules.
Were the shouts of joy by advocates of environmental and public health on December 13 misplaced? Were the headlines reporting the withdrawal of Dourson’s undeserved nomination misread? Thankfully, no. Politico goes on to note that Dourson recently updated his LinkedIn profile to indicate his time at the EPA will end this month, and multiple sources said he is no longer listed as an employee in an internal directory.
Nominating a chemical industry insider to oversee an office that’s supposed to protect people from unsafe chemicals is only a symptom of a much larger sickness at the EPA. While his defeat warrants celebration, it is but one battle of a much larger war to reclaim the integrity of the EPA. What we need is an EPA that isn’t controlled by chemical industry insiders that have profited from poisoning Americans; an EPA that will defend our health by keeping dangerous chemicals like lead, asbestos, and BPA, out of our water, air, food, and surroundings; an EPA that will fight for our future.
While Dourson was rejected as unfit for the role, there are additional protections still needed to ensure the EPA can fulfill its mission–to protect the health of people and the environment. This includes that EPA staff who have received donations or compensation by chemical companies recuse themselves from decisions involving toxic chemicals produced by their former donors’ clients, and employers, and that rules issued by the EPA are designed to protect the health of the many Americans who live near toxic facilities, drink polluted water and use everyday products with untested chemicals.
Goodbyes are usually hard. But not in this case. Dourson, a junk science peddler for the chemical industry, should never have been working at the EPA in the first place. His defeat represents an important step towards preserving the health of all Americans. Now the country can breathe a big sigh of relief as he walks back out and won't return.
https://www.alternet.org/environment/controversial-trump-nominee-michael-dourson-finally-leaving-epa-job-he-never-had
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Reforming Chemical Safety Program to Avoid Cuts
Jan 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
The EPA's chemical toxicity assessment program, which narrowly avoided the chopping block last year, is unveiling more transparent reports on uranium and chloroform to address GOP complaints.
House Republicans have threatened to cut funding for the program—called the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)—criticizing it for allegedly using unreliable data and acting too slowly to assess chemical hazards. In a memo released Jan. 30, the agency said it is addressing the criticism by making the assessment process more transparent.
The new reports released Jan. 30 show how EPA will assess uranium and how it will review literature to determine the toxicity of inhaled chloroform.
Both reports are available to the public. Previously, chemical assessment documents were not released for public comment until the scoping and systematic review process were completed.
The EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), which houses the IRIS program, analyzes the human health harms that chemicals may cause and the doses at which those harms could manifest. The results are used in setting exposure limits, cleanup targets, and other health protections across a broad range of environmental contexts.
The reports IRIS generates foster more certainty for groups involved in contaminated site cleanups, they say, than having to follow a patchwork of state and program-specific toxicity values.
NCEA and the National Academies of Science are holding a workshop Feb. 1 and 2 to discuss changes to IRIS and take public comment.
The American Chemistry Council, which has consistently criticized the IRIS program, is also concerned about the National Academies’ review of the program. The council said in December that the review has too short a timeframe and is primarily based on EPA input.
The council declined a request for comment.
Internal Benefits
Uranium is present at about 60 Superfund sites, according to the EPA, and site assessments measure oral intake of the radioactive element.
The EPA's Office of Water also needs an IRIS assessment that takes the most recent literature into account, according to the agency.
The uranium evaluation, which updates a 1989 assessment, will focus on health effects of the element other than cancer and that are not related to radioactive exposures.
The chloroform assessment is an update to a 1987 assessment and will focus on new inhalation exposure data and inconsistencies with the previous evaluation.
According to the EPA, its Region 4 office, Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Land and Emergency Management would benefit from an updated chloroform assessment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127646148&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127646148&jd=127646148
-
(ACC Mentioned) Dow Backs Call for Industry Input in Non-Animal Product Safety Tests
Jan 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Companies such as Dow Chemical, and the agencies that regulate them, should collaborate more to identify non-animal chemical safety tests that can help inform federal rules, a new interagency strategy recommends.
A report released Jan. 30 provides a “real opportunity to advance the application of alternative methods through an approach that involves federal agencies and industries providing input on the most pressing needs,” Sue Marty, director for science, toxicology and environmental research at the Dow Chemical Co., told Bloomberg Environment.
As more testing is required under the 2016 amendments to the nation's chemicals law, animal welfare groups and federal scientists are seeking ways to glean valuable information from new tests without increasing the number of animals that must be sacrificed to assess safety. The new tests offer detailed biological insights about chemicals more rapidly and at less cost than many traditional test animal studies.
Roadmap
A 16-member interagency committee with members from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, and Food and Drug Administration released the report: “A Strategic Roadmap for Establishing New Approaches to Evaluate the Safety of Chemicals and Medical Products in the the United States.”
The committee developed the roadmap to guide the use of new technologies—such as high-throughput robotic screening, tissue chips, and computational models—for toxicity tests for chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and medical products.
Cellular, genetic, computer-based, and other non-animal tests can offer additional insights and clues as to future tests that may be needed, Rick Becker, senior director of science and research at the American Chemistry Council told Bloomberg Environment.
Some example non-animal tests include one for eye irritation potential of EPA pesticide products and an aromatase inhibition assay, both of which are used by the EPA. Aromatase is the enzyme that synthesizes estrogen. As breast and ovarian cancers require estrogen to grow, inhibitors either block the production of estrogen or block the action of estrogen on receptors.
According to Linda Birnbaum, who directs the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, “there are times we do a traditional [animal] bioassay but that's not the first place we start.” Birnbaum made the remarks at a Jan. 30 toxicology conference.
The report was released four months before EPA's planned the release of its own strategy—mandated under the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016—to incorporate information from new types of non-animal toxicity tests into its regulatory decisions about chemicals.
Flipping Standard Approach
The interagency roadmap flips the approach for developing new safety test methods that has been used— somewhat unsuccessfully—for years, Warren Casey, director of a National Toxicology Program center that helped the committee develop the report, said during public meetings.
The standard approach had laboratory scientists developing and recommending safety test methods with little input from federal decision-makers or the regulated community, according to Casey. “Agencies need to take the lead, and that is exactly what they are doing with this roadmap,” Casey said in a statement. That way, decision-makers can secure relevant information to help them assess safety and risk.
Agencies should work closely with the regulated community, researchers, and their international counterparts in developing new tests, the roadmap said.
Different Needs
The interagency committee's report will promote more exchanges between regulators, industry, and test developers to “ensure appropriate technical design and chemical domain considerations are included which will lead to more rapid acceptance of the alternative approaches,” Marty said.
Catherine Willett, director of regulatory toxicology, risk assessment at the Humane Society of the U.S., also discussed the different designs alternative tests need to have and types of chemicals with which they must work.
The same general type of toxicity test might need to work quite differently for pharmaceutical chemicals, which tend to be water soluble and designed to move easily through cells, versus commercial chemicals that may not be water soluble, she said.
The type of test needed also will vary depending on the type of decision a regulator is making, she said.
The roadmap recognizes these important distinctions and directs agencies to fundamentally rethink what information they need and what ways they can get it, she said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127646149&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127646149&jd=127646149
-
3M Firefighting Foam Cancer Fears Spur Suits
Jan 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Hope Grosse grew up across the street from the Naval Air Warfare Center in Warminster, Pa.
As a child, she remembers playing in a creek that ran from the base onto her property. And she remembers seeing men on the base wearing “astronaut suits.”
Over the years, evidence began to mount showing something might not be right in Warminster, Grosse told Bloomberg Law.
All of the family's pets died of tumors, Grosse said. Later, her sister developed an autoimmune disorder.
When she was 25, Grosse was diagnosed with stage four melanoma—a cancer that is now in remission. Her father died from brain cancer the same year.
Now residents living near military bases are seeking answers, and some aim to hold the federal government or chemical manufacturers responsible for what they say are the toxic effects of two chemicals used for decades in firefighting foam on bases around the country.
The class action suits have been filed against 3M Co. and a variety of other manufacturers of aqueous film-forming foam, including Angus Fire, The Ansul Co., the Buckeye Fire Protection Co., Chemguard, National Foam, Tyco Fire Products, and United Technologies Corp.
The foam included perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), and the chemicals caused both groundwater contamination and personal injuries, plaintiffs say. They seek compensatory damages and costs associated with monitoring for cancer and other medical problems.
The litigation against the government has proven hard to bring because of governmental immunity and other defenses. Consequently, the residents are pushing hard on their actions against the manufacturers, with a number of new suits filed in recent months.
But 3M and other makers are vigorously fighting back. They say the chemicals, which have since been phased out of the foam, aren't dangerous. They also argue that as contractors of the government they're protected from liability.
Regardless of how the litigation plays out, one thing is clear: The lawyers representing the parties in the litigation won't be out of work anytime soon. The first suits were just filed in 2016 and additional suits are in the offing, plaintiffs’ attorneys say.
In the 1970s, the Department of Defense began using AFFF to extinguish petroleum-based fires, and it was used extensively in fire fighting training on military bases.
But after the EPA raised concerns about the persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity of PFOAs and PFOSs in the firefighting foam, manufacturers began voluntarily phasing out the chemicals in 2000.
In May 2016, the EPA established a Lifetime Health Advisory, setting a recommended lifetime exposure limit of 70 parts per trillion for a combined concentration of PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.
That same year, residents living near the Warminster site and the Navy's nearby Willow Grove base filed the first of several class action suits against the manufacturers of the foam, alleging personal injuries and property damage, and seeking medical monitoring (Bates v. 3M; Menkes v. 3M, and others).
Residents also filed a medical monitoring claim against the federal government. That was dismissed, and is now on appeal (Giovanni v. United States).
Many More Sites
But the Warminster and Willow Grove sites are just a small part of a bigger story.
Suits have now been filed over alleged contamination from military facilities in Colorado and New York, and more are expected.
The Department of Defense, in a report to Congress last October, said it has identified 393 active or recently closed installations with known or suspected releases of PFOS, PFOA, or both. These releases were “primarily associated with firefighting training areas, hangars, fire suppression systems, and aircraft crash sites,” it said.
Of those sites, the ones that pose a public health threat are those with drinking water contamination, Lenny Siegel, executive director of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight in Mountain View, Calif., told Bloomberg Law.
CPEO is an organization that promotes public participation in the environmental oversight and cleanup of federal facilities as well as Superfund and Brownfields sites.
“There are maybe under 100 where there's a pathway to drinking water,” Siegel said.
But residents living near these sites face steep hurdles in suing the federal government. It's protected from tort liability under a provision for actions involving the exercise of government discretion, which has been interpreted broadly to include damages stemming from a wide variety of activities.
“The case law is not the greatest” on this point, so few suits against the government are filed, attorney Paul Napoli with Napoli Shkolnik PLLC in Melville, N.Y., told Bloomberg Law.
As a result, plaintiffs are filing suits against 3M and other foam manufacturers, Napoli said. He represents several groups of plaintiffs.
‘The PCB of This Century’
In addition to the Willow Grove and Warminster suits, residents are pursuing a class action against manufacturers over firefighting foam-related contamination from the Peterson Air Force Base in El Paso County, Colo. (Bell v. 3M). And, in 2017, two separate groups of residents living near the Francis S. Grabeski Air National Guard Base in Suffolk County, N.Y., and the county itself, filed separate suits there, also against 3M and other makers (Ayo v. 3M; Green v. 3M; and Suffolk County v. 3M).
Also last year, plaintiffs filed three class action suits alleging foam contamination from Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh, N.Y. (Adamo v. Port Authority of New York; Fogarty v. Port Authority of New York; Miller v. Port Authority of New York).
Additional litigation is on the way, Napoli told Bloomberg Law.
Napoli's firm will soon be filing suits over contamination from the Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane, Wash., and the New Castle National Guard Base in Delaware, he said.
“This will be a litigation issue that will go on for a couple decades,” Napoli said.
“This is the PCB of this century—It's the only thing like PCBs that bioaccumulates and never leaves your body,” Napoli said.
“Our theory is that the defendants never warned the Air Force of the bioaccumulative nature of the contaminants and they misrepresented that they would biodegrade in 90 to 120 days,” he said.
‘No Harm to Human Health’
But 3M says the allegations are unfounded, and that the firefighting foam has not been shown to cause cancer.
“We do not know if 3M will be named in future lawsuits, though we hope it is becoming clear to others that 3M is positioned to prevail in such cases—and many of the existing cases lack merit,” 3M spokesperson Donna Fleming Runyon told Bloomberg Law.
“3M sold these products with instructions regarding their safe use and disposal, and the company acted appropriately at all times,” she said.
In a statement posted on the company's website, 3M quotes its own Dr. Geary Olsen, Ph.D.: “Not only does the scientific research indicate that PFOA and PFOS present no harm to human health at typical exposure levels, it also indicates that their levels are steadily declining in the environment and in human blood.”
The EPA has identified PFOS and PFOA as “emerging contaminants“—chemicals or materials characterized by a perceived, potential, or real threat to human health or the environment or by a lack of published health standards.
But according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, there currently is “no established (PFOA or PFOS) blood level at which a health effect is known nor is there a level that predicts health problems.”
In addition to denying health risks from the chemicals in its foam, 3M has also raised other defenses to the litigation.
In the Peterson Air Force Base case in Colorado, it said it is immune from suit as a government contractor.
The company's firefighting foam was made “to military specification or otherwise dictated by federal and/or state agencies, overseen and approved or ratified by those agencies, and/or the subject of federal and/or state statutes and regulations,” it said.
Though it is impossible to predict the outcome of the suits, 3M can point to some victories in related actions.
In December, 3M and other manufacturers won dismissal of some counts brought by the County of Barnstable, Mass., in a foam suit that doesn't involve a military site.
And in 2016 3M announced the dismissal of foam contamination claims brought against it in the United Kingdom.
Superfund Law
Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is set to decide whether to reinstate a suit against the federal government over the Willow Grove and Warminster contamination.
This case raises yet another defense to liability that the military might assert, at least at some sites.
In the Third Circuit case, Kristen and Charles Giovanni, who live adjacent to the Willow Grove site, filed suit under state law, alleging that the government's release of PFOA and PFOS from the base contaminated their groundwater and amounted to a disposal of hazardous substances.
In July 2017, a federal trial court dismissed the suit. Requiring the Navy to pay for medical monitoring and conduct a health effects study would interfere with cleanup activities being conducted under the federal Superfund law, the court reasoned.
The government, in a Jan. 24 brief, asked the Third Circuit to affirm the dismissal.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127646165&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127646165&jd=127646165
-
Lead-Paint Makers Try California Bond Measure to Duck Court Case
Jan 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Sherwin-Williams Co., NL Industries Inc., and ConAgra Grocery Products Co. are pushing for a $2 billion California bond measure to preempt a lead-paint public nuisance ruling.
The companies have donated $2 million each to gather enough signatures to qualify the initiative for the Nov. 6 statewide ballot, according to state campaign finance data.
All three companies are defendants in the nuisance case and have asked the California Supreme Court to review an appellate ruling that upheld, but trimmed, a trial court's finding of liability for lead-paint abatement in homes in 10 cities and counties. The companies face a steep bill to address the liability.
The Healthy Homes & Schools Act aims to undo the court decision, which sets “bad public policy” for a complicated issue, the bond campaign's spokeswoman, Tiffany Moffatt, told Bloomberg Environment Jan. 29.
“Policies that impact public health and place costly mandates on consumers should be carefully considered and vetted by the state Legislature and California voters, not promoted by trial lawyers who stand to benefit millions of dollars,” she said. “We look forward to tackling this important issue and educating California voters through the signature gathering process.”
July Deadline
State officials have cleared the proposed measure for circulation, giving the campaign until July 25 to gather the 365,880 valid signatures required by state law.
The measure would declare that lead paint in homes isn't a public nuisance and would eliminate liability for lead-paint manufacturers in cases pending on or after Nov. 1, 2017, the Attorney General's Office said Jan. 26.
The proposed initiative would authorize $2 billion in bond funds to clean up lead and other hazards in homes, schools, and senior housing. State taxpayers would pay $3.9 billion over 35 years to pay off the principal and interest, according to the state's Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance.
California State Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D) has said she would introduce legislation to block the ballot measure.
Long-Time Lawsuit
Santa Clara, Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Mateo, Solano, and Ventura counties and the cities of Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco sued the lead-paint manufacturers in March 2000.
Lead paint was outlawed in the U.S. in 1979.
In November, the appeals court rejected the companies’ bid to overturn a lower court decision requiring the companies to pay $1.15 billion to abate lead in pre-1981 homes in the 10 cities and counties.
The appellate court, however, decided the companies are liable for only pre-1951 homes and ordered the trial court to recalculate the award.
The proposed ballot measure addresses the unintended consequences the recent court ruling will have on homeowners throughout the state, Moffatt said.
Under the court order, the pre-1981 homes will be labeled a public nuisance and funding would be available for only the 10 cities and counties, she said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127646151&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127646151&jd=127646151
-
Trump Hints at Energy Dominance as US Producers Cross Historic Threshold
Jan 31, 2018 | Platts
By Brian Scheid and Meghan Gordon
President Donald Trump said Tuesday that the "war" on American energy is over in a State of the Union speech given as US crude oil output is set to reach levels not seen in more than 47 years.
The speech barely touched on energy. Trump did not even mention oil and much of the growth in US output took place while President Obama was still in the White House. But this month, US production is expected to average more than 10 million b/d for the first time since November 1970. The output jump is already altering US foreign relations and bolstering the Trump administration's calls for energy "dominance."
But those watching the path of US crude production closely remain uncertain over just how much America's relatively newfound supply wealth benefits future diplomatic efforts and how much influence US producers can possibly have over the ever-growing global oil market. In addition, domestic infrastructure constraints, shifting trade policy, and mounting demand could all blunt the impact of the increase in US output.
So, just what does America's breach of the 10 million b/d mean?
"It's obviously a symbolic milestone, but it symbolizes the re-emergence of the US as one of the world's energy superpowers," said Jason Bordoff, a former energy policy adviser to Barack Obama and founding director of Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy.
ENERGY DOMINANCE
At last week's World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Russian oil minister Alexander Novak, Saudi oil minister Khalid al-Falih and US energy Secretary Rick Perry shared a stage.
Rather than a discussion on efforts to keep foreign crude flowing into the US to dampen potential increases in gasoline prices, the panel focused on the role of US shale in "spoiling" efforts by OPEC, Russia and other producers to cut oil output and the likelihood of more US sanctions aimed at Russia's oil sector.
"It's a different conversation now," said Bordoff.
This new status as a global energy superpower has augmented the Trump administration's push to for US energy "dominance," a vague move away from the rhetoric of previous administrations to be energy independent.
And the 10 million b/d oil production milestone gives the US more leverage with Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East, Richard Kauzlarich, co-director of the George Mason University's Center for Energy Science and Policy, said.
"We're not beholden to every political crisis that arises in that part of the world from the cost of our energy," said Kauzlarich, who was the US ambassador to Azerbaijan during the Clinton administration.
US oil output is expected to average 10.01 million b/d this month, climbing to 11.4 million b/d by January 2019, according to S&P Global Platts Analytics projections.
US shale growth, which accounts for the bulk of the domestic output increase, is expected to average about 6.55 million b/d next month, including 2.87 million b/d in the Permian, according to the EIA's latest Drilling Productivity Report. That is up 2.43 million b/d and 1.47 million b/d, respectively, from 2014, according to the EIA.
But the shale output increase still represents just over 2% of total world production, expected to average about 100.3 million b/d this year, and shows that the 10 million b/d milestone for US production is "not as big of a deal as it might seem," said Antoine Halff, former chief oil analyst with the International Energy Agency.
"Sure, the more oil you produce, the more insulated you are against a supply disruption, a physical shortfall in supply," said Halff, who is now director of the global oil markets program at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy. "But it doesn't really isolate you from the global market, the impact of an oil crisis, the price effects, the economic impact, all of that in a globalized world."
GLOBAL RELEVANCE
The growth in shale may be shifting the US role in the global market as its domestic output matches its previous high in 1970, but it is still importing roughly six times the amount of crude it was back then. In October 1970, for example, the US imported 1.26 million b/d of crude, compared with 7.6 million b/d imported in October 2017.
The US is importing less, of course, than it was in June 2014, when it imported 10.5 million b/d, the all-time high, but it is still dependent on global supply.
"No country is an energy island, no matter what the consumption levels are, no matter what the supply levels are," Halff said. Despite the growth in output, domestic demand will remain roughly double supply, according to EIA projections. This year, for example, EIA projects crude oil production to average 10.27 million b/d and total consumption to average 20.31 million b/d, including 9.33 million b/d of motor gasoline demand.
"At 10 million b/d [output] America will stand taller than any other major oil producer in the world, but America is also standing in a much deeper hole," said Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners.
Additionally, the growth in shale and the decline in imports may be impairing the Trump administration efforts towards US energy security, said David Goldwyn, president of Goldwyn Global Strategies and a special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs at the State Department during the Obama administration.
"I think this illusion that shale will fix everything is creating a little bit of amnesia," he said.
Growing domestic supply has compelled the Trump administration to disregard years of diplomatic efforts to maintain stability in producing countries such as Nigeria and Angola. This, combined with declining investment in exploration and production projects outside of shale plays, could compound a future supply disruption.
SANCTIONS
No matter how much US production climbs, shale operators cannot still respond rapidly to global supply shocks, according to Bordoff from Columbia University.
US producers may be able to ramp up production in respond to a sudden shortfall in the Middle East or Africa, but it will probably take nine months to a year. Saudi Arabia could likely fill the shortfall within a few weeks, Bordoff said.
This has caused the Trump administration, as well as the Obama administration before, to shy away from significant sanctions on oil sales out of Russia or Venezuela, he said.
This is unlikely to change no matter how much US output ramps up, according to Andrew Holland, a senior fellow at the American Security Project.
"Unless we're going to nationalize large parts of the oil industry or if we're going to start really using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a tool of government policy, I just don't see it happening," Holland said.https://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/washington/trump-hints-at-energy-dominance-as-us-producers-27910201
-
Trump Tax Plan a $190 Billion Boost to U.S. Oil, Study Finds
Jan 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Nussbaum
When President Donald Trump gives his State of the Union address Jan. 30, he'll surely tout the sweeping U.S. tax overhaul approved by Congress last month. For the country's oil explorers, the law should mean an almost $200 billion boost in asset values, one consultant says.
The combination of a lower corporate tax rate, reduced pass-through rates for partnerships and accelerated expensing of capital costs should mean a post-tax increase of 19 percent, or $190.4 billion, for explorers with profitable assets, researcher Wood Mackenzie Ltd. said in a estimate released Jan. 30.
That will more than compensate for other changes in the law that could limit deductions for past losses or encourage states to raise their fees on local production.
“While we may not see much increase in more marginal assets, the increased profitability of valuable proven onshore and deepwater plays will likely drive more international capital towards the U.S.,” WoodMac said in an emailed statement. “Long term, it will help solve the ’trapped cash’ problem where, under the old system, U.S. companies would face steep tax payments for repatriating funds from abroad.“
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127646152&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127646152&jd=127646152
-
Scott Pruitt’s Words Don’t Match His Actions on Dangers of Methane Pollution
Jan 30, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Katie Huffling
As a nurse, I recognize the important role that clean air, clean water, and a clean environment have in protecting the health of all Americans. My nurse colleagues and I look to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to follow its mission of protecting public health and the environment.
Recently, the EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt acknowledged that methane pollution is a potent greenhouse gas. Unfortunately, his actions over the course of the last year have sharply contradicted his newfound recognition of this problem.
Pruitt’s acknowledgment of the science comes after a year after taking the helm of the agency, during which time he has worked diligently to rollback critical public health safeguards. Despite these attempts to go against well-supported research, Pruitt recently conceded that methane gas is in fact, a potent air pollutant that can make the air our families breathe toxic, especially to those most vulnerable among us, such as children with asthma.
Pruitt’s actions throughout this past year indicate that he cares more about oil and gas lobbyists than he does about the health and future of American families. Although he may claim to care about methane pollution, Pruitt has used his position to take aim at commonsense rules that would reduce methane and other pollution from the oil and gas industry and make it easier for our kids to breathe. We need Pruitt and the EPA to put the health of our families first and allow these rules to move forward as originally proposed.
In May, Pruitt proposed a two-year suspension of key provisions of the New Source Pollution Standards for the oil and gas industry. These reasonable safeguards were designed to limit the release of methane pollution during oil and gas or production and have an additional benefit of protecting communities from other harmful pollutants released alongside this potent gas, such as benzene and other smog-forming volatile organic compounds.
Pruitt is rolling back these protections, despite acknowledging that children will be negatively and disproportionately impacted by this suspension. Additionally, as Pruitt continues to block the methane standards that help reduce smog, he has also threatened to take away the tools that help states address smog-forming pollution from oil and gas sites in areas with unhealthy air pollution.
Americans cannot afford any delay or repeal of methane pollution safeguards. Every year, 500,000 days of school are missed by children due to the health impacts of ozone smog linked to oil and gas pollution. What’s more, over 9 million Americans face greater risk of life-threatening cancer because they live in areas directly impacted by the toxic emissions of nearby oil and gas sites.
Methane pollution poses a serious and immediate risk to the health of Americans. Instead of delay and dismissal, methane pollution should be addressed with seriousness and urgency — especially by the leader of the EPA whose primary mission is to protect public health and the environment, especially for children who are unable to advocate for themselves.
Besides having a positive impact on the health of communities near oil and gas development sites, reducing methane and volatile organic compounds pollution makes fiscal sense. The recently released Lancet Commission on Pollution notes that since 1970 for every dollar invested in reducing air pollution an average of $30 has returned to the U.S. economy. These investments are immeasurable for families and children whose health is improved by these critical protections.
If Pruitt is worried about methane pollution, it is not only within his power as head of the EPA to do something about it — it is his job to do something about it. It is simply not enough for Pruitt to say that our families’ health is important to him — it’s time for him to prove it.
Katie Huffling, RN, MS, CNM is a nurse and certified nurse-midwife and the executive director the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, the only national nursing organization focused on the intersection of the environment and health.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/371447-scott-pruitts-words-dont-match-his-actions-on-dangers-of-methane
-
These Quiet Policy Changes Will Pave Way for Massive Development on Public Land
Jan 30, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Eric Holst
Many of Donald Trump’s most atrocious attacks on nature and wildlife have faced swift backlash from the American public – including his reversal of national monument designations, his original reversal of the trophy hunting ban, and his reopening of decades-long forged plans to protect the imperiled greater sage-grouse.
But the most recent actions have taken place quietly, drawing little attention from journalists, policymakers and the public.
On December 22, as much of the nation was winding down for the holidays, the Trump administration surreptitiously threw out the rulebook for minimizing impacts of oil and gas drilling on public land. Five days later, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke revised rules for how oil and gas leases are prioritized in greater sage-grouse habitat.
The timing of these maneuvers couldn’t be worse: Rolling back mitigation policies right before Congress releases a new infrastructure bill will compound the damage inflicted on our environment.Infrastructure bill may target Endangered Species Act
The infrastructure bill will likely overlook the need for green infrastructure – including natural infrastructure such as wetlands and, if anything, weaken environmental standards.
In a leaked draft of the plan, the White House is already signaling its intention to dramatically weaken the Endangered Species Act and other protections by lowering environmental permitting requirements for major new infrastructure projects.
In fact, Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, has said specifically that he hopes the bill will include changes to the ESA, a bedrock environmental law that passed almost unanimously and has the support of 90 percent of voters.
This is in addition to five proposed House bills under consideration right now, each of which would weaken implementation of the ESA one way or another. Instead of a full repeal of the law, in other words, the ESA could see death by a thousand cuts through multiple congressional and administrative actions.
In addition, the administration wants to open up more public land for oil, gas and coal leasing. It recently announced a plan to also open up vast areas of American coastal waters to offshore drilling.
If these efforts succeed, Americans who enjoy our nation’s great outdoors and wildlife will feel the effects, as will our economy.Millions of jobs, iconic wildlife at stake
These policies will increase industry’s access to public lands, reducing recreational opportunities and ultimately putting wildlife at greater risk of extinction.
Trump’s actions and the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act will also have negative economic impacts on the $25-billion mitigation and $887-billion recreation sectors, which directly support nearly 8 million American jobs.
For the oil and gas sector, meanwhile, Trump’s actions set a new and harmful precedent that industries don’t have to clean up after themselves.States offer a different roadmap
While Trump’s actions are clearly catering to industry demands, Western leaders such as Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead have continued to show bipartisan leadership on conservation efforts across the region.
These governors joined the chorus of voices now urging the administration to keep federal plans for the imperiled greater sage-grouse intact. They also joined other Western governors to organize a set of workshops to improve mechanisms for protecting endangered species.
Unlike the Trump administration, they understand that wildlife policies and implementation must continue to be based in sound science, not partisan politics. Or we risk bringing more at-risk wildlife closer to the brink of extinction while negatively affecting jobs and the wilderness all Americans hold dear.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/01/30/these-quiet-policy-changes-will-pave-way-massive-development-public-land
-
With Democrats in Charge, N.J. Wants to Exit Litigation
Jan 30, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
With a Democrat in its governor's mansion, New Jersey wants to exit the massive litigation over the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan.
The Garden State filed a motion today to voluntarily withdraw from the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the wake of the swearing-in of Gov. Phil Murphy and Gurbir Grewal, the nation's first Sikh state attorney general.
Under Republican Gov. Chris Christie, New Jersey had been among a large coalition of states that filed lawsuits over the rule, which aimed to lower carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Dozens of industry entities and companies also challenged the rule.
Murphy has moved swiftly to overturn Christie's climate policies. Yesterday, he signed an executive order re-entering New Jersey into a regional cap-and-trade program that Christie had withdrawn from in 2012 (Greenwire, Jan. 30).
North Carolina similarly dropped the litigation over the Clean Power Plan and other Obama-era policies when Democratic leadership took office in the state in 2017 (E&E News PM, Feb. 23, 2017).
Though the litigation over the Clean Power Plan is fully briefed and argued, it's been suspended since last April, when the D.C. Circuit granted a Trump administration motion to hold the case in abeyance. EPA asked that the case be suspended while it goes through the administrative process to roll back the rule. Environmentalists have tried unsuccessfully to convince the court to restart the case.
Implementation of the Clean Power Plan remains stayed by the Supreme Court.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/01/30/stories/1060072405
-
Groups Call for Investigation of EPA Inaction at Torrance Refinery
Jan 30, 2018 | Los Angeles Times
By Evan Halper
After federal inspectors uncovered what they reported to be serious hazardous waste violations at the Torrance Refinery, the incoming Trump administration chose not to pursue them, dismaying the team that visited the facility.
Now, environmental groups are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency's watchdog office to investigate.
Environment California and the Environmental Integrity Project, a Washington group, filed an official request asking the inspector general "to undertake an investigation to determine whether enforcement against this facility was improperly or unreasonably deferred."
A Los Angeles Times story published earlier this month featured one of the inspectors who discovered the violations -- which included hundreds of tons of hazardous waste being improperly stored on the site for 26 years -- expressing concern that politics played a role in the EPA inaction. The agency has refused to comment on its decision not to act on the long list of draft violations its staff drew up.
The EPA says the investigation is still ongoing, nearly a year after the inspection team filed its report. Instead of issuing the violations suggested, the EPA passed the report on to the state, which has significantly less experience identifying and responding to the type of hazardous waste problems the EPA spotted. The state has yet to take action.
The letter the advocacy groups sent to the agency's inspector general says the EPA inaction is particularly concerning in light of the facility's history. An explosion at the refinery in 2015 was a "serious near miss" that could have resulted in a "potentially catastrophic release" into surrounding communities, according to the U.S. Chemical Safety Board.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-torrance-refinery-epa-20180130-story.html
-
Trump Gives Few Details, but Plan Gradually Unfolding
Jan 31, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk and Geof Koss
President Trump laid out his plans for infrastructure in broad strokes last night, but the details remain elusive.
"I am asking both parties to come together to give us the safe, fast, reliable and modern infrastructure our economy needs and our people deserve," Trump said in his first State of the Union address. "Tonight, I am calling on the Congress to produce a bill that generates at least $1.5 trillion for the new infrastructure investment we need."
The remarks were not dissimilar to what the president said about infrastructure nearly a year ago during a speech to a joint session of Congress at the outset of his presidency.
But $1.5 trillion is $500 billion more than what he proposed in that earlier address, and a significant bump in what the White House had initially suggested in preliminary talks with Congress.
Despite the relative lack of details in the speech, lawmakers are watching as tangible infrastructure proposals gradually emerge from the White House.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said the president was planning to bring more information to the Republican policy retreat in West Virginia this week.
"The secretary of Transportation's going to be there — [Elaine] Chao — we're going to have [National Economic Council Director] Gary Cohn, so we're going to spend an hour on that on Thursday," Barrasso said.
The White House during the speech circulated an outline of where the money for infrastructure would go. The outline generally conforms with a draft plan that was leaked to Axios last week, which would put half of the federal money toward incentivizing investment at the state and local level.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), Barrasso's counterpart on the EPW Committee, added that Democrats haven't grown pessimistic yet.
"It's still early," the EPW Committee ranking member said last night. "We should have the ability to put together a broad bipartisan plan. And I'm not sure that this administration knows how to do it, but hopefully we can figure it out."
Others, though, don't share that outlook. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said she could only recall a single meeting with the administration on infrastructure.
"I don't know what they're thinking," she said.
One infrastructure item absent from the speech was the National Park Service's maintenance backlog, which Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke last week signaled would be addressed in Trump's address (E&E News PM, Jan. 26).
Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks and is close to Zinke, told E&E News last night not to read anything into the omission.
"There's a long to-do list for our nation, and he's talked about infrastructure," Daines said of Trump. "While he didn't specifically call out national parks tonight, I can tell you for certain, because we're working with the White House and Secretary Zinke, it's one of his highest priorities — the $11 billion backlog that needs to be part of an overall infrastructure bill."
Daines confirmed that an "Interior Maintenance Fund" financed by mineral and energy development on public lands that was referenced in a recent leaked administration document is one idea under discussion.
Daines praised Zinke for "looking for creative, innovative ways to fund infrastructure."
"And I think what he's proposed is something that we need to take a look at," he said.
Sticking points
Though it won praise from Republicans, Trump's speech last night highlighted a number of tricky issues that Congress will have to work out on infrastructure in the coming months.
The White House is expected to finally release a detailed legislative proposal within a few weeks. In the early stages, the administration has proposed spending $200 billion to leverage up to $1.7 trillion after contributions from state and local governments and the private sector.
"Every federal dollar should be leveraged by partnering with state and local governments and, where appropriate, tapping into private-sector investment," Trump said.
Members on both sides of the aisle have indicated that they think Trump's ratio of federal to outside spending — which flips the 80/20 split that has traditionally funded infrastructure — may be optimistic.
Carper said Democrats are looking for the federal spending to be a bigger slice of the pie.
"Democrats favor a $1 trillion investment," Carper said. "We want real funding."
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who also sits on EPW, said a bigger federal investment is likely on the table.
"I think they may be a little optimistic in terms of getting that type of a return on $200 billion," he said. "I think they may have to be looking at more infusion of federal dollars going in."
Still, there are questions as to how Congress plans to pay for infrastructure, even if the final number stays at $200 billion.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, said the key to unlocking the "pent-up energy" in both parties on infrastructure remains finding a funding source.
"The things that we've done is try to set the table on things like brownfields, safe drinking water, things that can be brought to the table as part of a big package," he said, referencing bills his panel has moved that he wants to see included in the infrastructure package.
"But I always think that the holy grail is replenishing the Highway Trust Fund, because that's what moves everybody," he said, "you do roads and bridges, locks and dams, broadband."
'A nation of builders'
Trump also pointed last night to what he wants to do to streamline environmental permitting, but that, too, could be a heavy lift.
"Any bill must also streamline the permitting and approval process — getting it down to no more than two years, and perhaps even one," the president said.
In a "discussion draft" leaked to The Washington Post late last week, the administration proposed slapping a two-year time limit on environmental permitting and requiring the White House Council on Environmental Quality to rewrite its guidance for the National Environmental Policy Act (Greenwire, Jan. 29).
"America is a nation of builders," Trump said last night. "We built the Empire State Building in just one year — is it not a disgrace that it can now take 10 years just to get a permit approved for a simple road?"
There are indeed instances of long permitting wait times for infrastructure projects, as congressional Republicans are quick to point out.
At Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, for instance, it took nearly 20 years to navigate environmental permits and lawsuits over potential wetlands damage for a new runway that eventually opened in 2008. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) and other lawmakers have highlighted the airport as they make the case for permitting reform.
But critics say those kinds of broad conclusions about permitting are misleading.
Environmentalists in particular think the administration is misrepresenting the burden of environmental laws like NEPA and how the permitting process works.
"Trump's proposal fails to acknowledge the lengths to which federal agencies have already gone to reform these laws and reform permitting times," Christy Goldfuss, senior vice president for energy and environment policy at the Center for American Progress, said in a call with reporters yesterday before the speech.
"It is impossible from where we are sitting now to see how any of the provisions in the current proposal would be acceptable, even if they just take a few pieces of these," she added.
Some Democrats, meanwhile, have also started to balk at Trump's permitting reform proposals. House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said a bigger federal investment — rather than environmental permits — should be the target of the plan.
"President Trump mistakenly wants people to believe that environmental protections are preventing infrastructure projects from moving forward when in reality the obstacle is a serious lack of funding," Pallone said in a statement yesterday.
But Rounds said those Democratic objections are nothing lawmakers won't be able to work through.
"I think they're going to ask some hard questions," he said, "and we're going to have to be able to answer those hard questions."
Reporter Adam Aton contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/01/31/stories/1060072461
-
Trump Calls for Condensed Permitting Process for Infrastructure
Jan 30, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna
President Donald Trump called for any infrastructure package developed by Congress to shrink the permitting process for new projects to as little as a year.
"Any bill must also streamline the permitting and approval process — getting it down to no more than two years, and perhaps even one," Trump said during his State of the Union address.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) previously told POLITICO he was eyeing a two-year window after which projects would be deemed approved, though Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she was uneasy with a "hard stop" in the process.
Trump also said the infrastructure bill should leverage federal money by partnering "with state and local governments and, where appropriate, tapping into private sector investment."
WHAT'S NEXT: Trump asked Congress to produce an infrastructure package that would generate $1.5 trillion in public and private infrastructure investments.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Opinion: Let’s Build Something Great Together
Jan 31, 2018 | Roll Call
By Rep. Sam Graves
2017 was a record year for our economy. Thanks to tax reform, and this administration’s aggressive regulatory reduction, our economy is growing at an exponential rate. 2018 presents a great opportunity to push the throttle on our economic growth as we move to our next big priority: infrastructure.
Infrastructure is pure commerce. Everything in this country moves. So an efficient transportation network is vital to our economic future. However, federal funding for infrastructure is not unlimited.
With that in mind, the Trump administration is expected to prioritize new, innovative proposals to encourage additional investments in infrastructure that warrant serious consideration.
No new or existing program is going to be the silver bullet that fixes every one of our infrastructure needs. But coupling these new ideas with improvements to current federal transportation programs will make a meaningful impact.
An integral piece of the administration’s proposal will be to address the current federal permitting process. Anyone who defends the status quo has never been a part of any project — big or small — involving the federal government.
The president understands this. He has been building large projects his entire life, giving him firsthand knowledge of just how unnecessary and costly the process can be. We can no longer afford to let the federal process delay projects and drive up prices, which ultimately hurts workers, commuters and our economy.
Most importantly, we need to address how we pay for our infrastructure. In May 2017, a bipartisan majority of both parties in the House expressed support for fixing the highway trust fund. An infrastructure package is an ideal opportunity to address this problem.
Doing so would provide long-term certainty beyond 2020, when the trust fund, our primary source of federal infrastructure investment, will again be insolvent. We must break the cycle of bailouts for the highway trust fund. It simply isn’t good policy.
Finally, we must look toward the future.
Rep. Sam Graves is a Republican representing Missouri’s 6th District. He chairs the Transportation Highways and Transit Subcommittee, which oversees the development of a national transportation policy and focuses on improving America’s highway system.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/infrastructure-graves-trump
-
Toxic Chemical Releases Fell Over Decade, EPA Analysis Says
Jan 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
Toxic pollution released into the environment increased slightly in 2016, but is down significantly from a decade ago, the EPA reported Jan. 30.
About 3.4 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were released into the air, water, and land in 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency reported. That's down 21 percent from 2006, but a 1 percent uptick from 2015.
In terms of air pollution alone, the amount of toxic chemicals released, including acidic gases from electric utilities and mercury compounds from coal-fired power plants, fell 58 percent since 2006, the EPA said. The report attributed decreases in air emissions to power plants using less coal as a fuel source, installing pollution-control technologies, and complying with regulations.
Air emissions of lead and mercury—considered chemicals of special concern because they are persistent, toxic, and known or suspected human carcinogens that move up the food chain—decreased by more than 60 percent between 2006 and 2016.
Once-In, Always-In
But the data is all from before the Trump administration, and the EPA under Administrator Scott Pruitt recently axed the “once-in, always-in” guidance requiring stricter emissions limits and pollution control devices on major sources that release more than 10 tons of a single toxic chemical or 25 tons of multiple hazardous air emissions.
Ending the practice could undo the progress seen in air emissions reduction, Eric Schaeffer, executive director at the Environmental Integrity Program, told Bloomberg Environment. Without permanently binding pollution controls, major sources can pollute up to the limit without consequences.
“Letting that creep up is not a good thing and could cut into that trend for sure,” Schaeffer said.
However, EPA's top air official, in a recent interview with Bloomberg News, defended the decision to reverse the “once-in, always-in” policy from criticism that it would increase toxic emissions of benzene, lead and other pollutants.
“It doesn't appear that's going to happen as a practical matter,” Bill Wehrum, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, said.
The amount of toxic chemicals discharged into streams decreased by 24 percent during the past 10 years. Most of the reductions came from fewer nitrate compounds escaping from wastewater treatment plants, the report said.
Meanwhile, disposal of chemicals increased 6 percent for the same period.
The EPA report analyzed site-level emissions of toxic pollution that companies and federal facilities reported to a national database called the Toxic Release Inventory.
The database contains emissions self-reported by individual facilities of more than 650 chemicals across sectors including the petroleum, manufacturing, mining, and power industries. The database also indicates whether the chemicals were released to the air, water, or soil, as well as the amount of chemical wastes disposed of by facilities.
Overall, about 28 billion pounds of waste were recycled, burned for energy recovery, disposed of, or released into the environment in 2016, the EPA said.
Approximately 21,600 facilities submitted 2016 data to the inventory.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127646140&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127646140&jd=127646140
-
EPA Formally Announces TRI Analysis Following Quiet Release
Jan 30, 2018 | Inside EPA
PA is touting its release of the national analysis of the most recent available data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), showing “that industrial facilities continue to reduce the releases of TRI chemicals through pollution reduction activities,” a day after Inside EPA first reported the agency's quietly released findings.
“In 2016, 87% -- of the nearly 28 billion pounds of chemical waste -- was not released into the environment due to the use of preferred waste management practices such as recycling, energy recovery, and treatment,” EPA's Jan. 30 press statement says.
The press statement follows Inside EPA's Jan. 29 story, describing the agency's quiet posting of the National Analysis for 2016 TRI data last week. The analysis show releases of toxic chemicals to air decreased 58 percent, or by 829 million pounds between 2006 and 2016, with the most recent year marking another drop.
As EPA describes in its statement, “[c]oal- and oil-powered electric utilities and paper manufacturing facilities reported the greatest reductions, but nearly every sector reduced its air releases.”
EPA's statement does not share that while the decade-long decline in air releases was accompanied by a 24 percent reduction since 2006 of on-site surface water discharges and a 30 percent reduction since 2006 in off-site releases, on-site land disposal increased by 6 percent since 2006. EPA in the analysis says the metal mining sector accounts for most of these releases, and that the “recent fluctuations” in reported releases “are primarily due to changes in waste quantities reported by metal mines,” which account for 66 percent of land disposal releases in the 2016 data.
The statement also touts “expanded access to tribal information, a closer look at off-site transfers of TRI chemicals, highlights of the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector’s pollution prevention achievements, and a discussion of the TRI Program’s role as a model in the international community.”
The statement does not specifically mention the enhanced ability to query TRI data through a new feature called a Qlik dashboard, providing additional charts and graphs of database queries, or similar new enhancements to the related Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) database.
RSEI is an effort to place TRI data in a risk context by combining toxicity information for TRI chemicals along with the TRI release information. EPA's analysis indicates that its RSEI hazard trend and risk scores track the historical trend of declines in TRI releases.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-formally-announces-tri-analysis-following-quiet-release
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested